and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Oct 2014, 05:08

10

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

53%(01:22) correct 47%(01:20) wrong based on 556 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Oct 2014, 05:08

1

This post receivedKUDOS

3

This post wasBOOKMARKED

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

Show Tags

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Oct 2014, 22:13

1

This post receivedKUDOS

1

This post wasBOOKMARKED

This is a nice question!!

A. Weakens. States that allocating more funds won’t help as the current funds itself is not being utilized well.

B. Weakens the contention that allocation of more funds will help treat and prevent malicitis. It says that a new test has been employed this year to detect malicitis at an earlier stage in the development of disease. A logical outcome of this implementation would only be an INCREASE in number of positive cases DETECTED (NOT CREATED). This does not necessarily mean that number of people LIKELY to suffer from malicitis has simultaneously increased. Quite possible that the potential number of future cases has actually dropped and with the rise in number of cases actually detected, we have finally reached a point where we are sure of eradicating the disease completely. Let’s take numbers:

4 years ago:

Total number of people in the town likely to be affected and actually affected: 1000

Total number of cases actually detected and undergoing treatment: 200

Probability of malicitis being actually reported: 20%

This year:

Total number of people in the town likely to be affected and actually affected: 500

Total number of cases actually detected and undergoing treatment after the new method was introduced: 450…Just 50 cases not diagnosed (perhaps because this year is over by the time the remaining 50 could have been brought under the scanner)

(In retrospect)Total number of cases that could have been actually detected without the new method: 20% probability i.e. 100 only

This means that the introduction of the method has actually increased the probability of detecting malicitis early and is a welcome measure towards treating and preventing malicitis. Hence, the addition of more funds may not really help much as number of new cases is already on decline…

C. Weakens. This states that the number of new cases since the last five years is zero. That is, the cases reported this year are recurrent cases, ones which were first detected within a time-frame of not more than five years ago. Hence, there is no cause for allocation of more funds as far as at least ‘prevention of malicitis’ is concerned since the data obtained so far suggests that there are anyways NO NEW CASES REPORTED THIS YEAR (probably malicitis is already eradicated, except for those who are already infected).

E. Weakens. If a private foundation has already pledged an amount for research for the next five years, allocation of surplus funds would not help much unless it be shown that treatment/prevention and research potential worth more than this pledged amount for the next five years actually exists.

D. DOES NOT WEAKEN! This option definitely does not weaken the argument. However, it does not necessarily strengthen it too. At best, it leaves the argument unaffected. Unless it be proved that the funds reviewed four years ago are insufficient to match the current levels of treatment and prevention of malicitis, we really can’t say that D strengthens the argument. As long as it does not weaken the argument, it is the correct answer!

Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Oct 2014, 06:51

1

This post receivedKUDOS

lakshey1993 wrote:

Please share your reviews about this OA!

Looks legit to me!

The argument concludes that we need to spend more on malicitis prevention. The only evidence provided is that the number of diagnosed cases of malicitis has doubled in recent years. This is a deeply flawed argument--no surprise, as "each weakens EXCEPT" questions tend to be the most fragile arguments on the GMAT.

Fortunately, the flaws largely fall into a few classic patterns. First: overlooked alternatives. Is increased spending really the only solution? Second: scope shift. We have an increase in diagnosis; the argument assumes that the only possible cause is an increase in the actual occurrence of the disease, as opposed to an increase in reporting. Finally: number versus percent. An increase in the number of cases is insufficient data without corresponding population data. We care about per person frequency of the disease, not just the number of cases.

A and E directly attack the first assumption by suggesting alternatives to government funding. B attacks the second, suggesting that increase in reporting is due to increased detection, not increased prevalence. And C attacks the third, indicating that the increase in occurrence of the illness is primarily due to an increase in the size of the population.

That leaves D, which really isn't relevant at all. Who cares what experts decided four years ago? Lots could have happened between now and then, invalidating the experts judgement--funds might well still be necessary. D is the only answer that is not a weakener, and so it is correct.

Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Nov 2014, 08:27

1

This post receivedKUDOS

a13ssandra wrote:

Can someone please explain why D is the correct answer. I thought A was correct

Hi, here is my way....try to find an option which is LEAST weaken or IMPERTINENT....A----funds are currently under-utilized........weaken the conclusion that government should now allocate more funds may not reach the target.D----a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago.......its only a piece of statement about what was done with the funding by the experts before...neither weaken or strengthen the inference and the conclusion....

Show Tags

05 Dec 2014, 16:01

1

This post receivedKUDOS

My pick is D.

Premise 1: More people are being diagnosed with malicitis.Premise 2: The number of people diagnosed with the disease is more than double the number reported four years ago. Conclusion: The government needs to spend more money for treatment and prevention of this disease.

We are asked to pick one that does not weaken the argument. This means the correct answer either strengthens (unlikely because this is too easy) the argument or just has no effect on the argument (more likely). GMAT question writers tend to disguise the correct answer by making it look like it has an effect on the conclusion, so careful reading is needed to avoid such tricks.

A. Funds already available for research in malicitis are currently underutilised. Weakens. If the funds set aside to combat malicitis is underutilised then there is no need to increase the amount of funding.

B. A new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease. Weakens. This one is a little trickier. Just reading it once it seems as if the government should increase funding because the new test shows great promise. But wait - it says "employed for the first time this year" - so technically it's already been budgeted for. Combine that with the fact that the test will detect the disease sooner = cheaper to treat = means that no additional funding will be needed.

C. The number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years. Weakens. In the premise it states that the number of cases doubled compared to four years ago. However choice C states that the increase in the # of cases is in line with the overall population.

D. A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago. Correct - No Effect The correct answer is the one that either strengthens the argument or has no effect. Let's look at this statement - experts reviewed funding four years ago. What's the conclusion from this statement? Nothing. We don't know whether the committee felt funding is adequate or inadequate. All we know is that they reviewed funding four years ago. Written this way, choice D has no effect on the argument and is the correct answer. Had it been written "A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago and found it inadequate" then it would weaken the argument.

E. A private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years. Weakens. Easiest choice to cross off. Should be pretty obvious since it states that there is an alternative source of funding.

Show Tags

05 Dec 2014, 20:48

hariready wrote:

Not convinced with the OA. Help.

If the funding was reviewed four years ago, when the number of people diagnosed was less than half the number of people who are diagnosed now, does it strengthen the conclusion that the funding needs to be reviewed again?

Thanks.

Good question. I had the same issue when I first read the question stem. I think what makes GMAT CR questions difficult is that in real life we are used to making inferences from things we hear and read because we are used to getting incomplete information. However, on the GMAT everything you read must be taken at face value. It's either it weakens the argument on its own or it doesn't.

With that in mind, let's look at Choice D.

A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago.

What that says, literally, is that a bunch of people looked at the funding situation four years ago. That's it. We don't know the outcome of the meeting, whether if committee felt that government needed to spend more money on treating the disease four years ago or if it felt that there was enough funding to deal with the disease even if the no. of cases were to increase by 10x. Since we don't know the outcome of the meeting, Choice D on its own neither weakens nor strengthens the argument.

Show Tags

21 Dec 2014, 02:27

1

This post receivedKUDOS

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion EXCEPT

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized (Weakener)B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease (Weakener)C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years (Neutral neither Weakener nor Strengthener )

\(\frac{2}{10} ---> \frac{5}{25}\) cases more than doubled but ratio is still same... so I do not see how it weakens the argument.. I consider it neutral.

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago (Strengthener )E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years(Weakener)_________________

Piyush K-----------------------Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. EdisonDon't forget to press--> KudosMy Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use?| 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Show Tags

Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Mar 2017, 22:21

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

Task is what 'strengthens' the argument.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilizedThen if Govt allocate more funds also, it won't be of any help. Weaken.

B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease It can now be prevented at earlier stage and hence, no need of additional funding. Weaken.

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years

It suggests the proportion of affected people has not increased.No need of additional funding. Weaken.

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago

This suggests new review is required and followed by more govt. funding.Strengthen.

E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

MBA Acceptance Rate by Undergraduate Major Many applicants may wonder if their undergraduate major impacts their chance of getting into business school. Admissions data suggests that your college major...